= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinHanson comments on How David Beats Goliath - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (25)
I worry about selection effects - maybe underdogs only choose unconventional strategies when they could think of one that seemed promising.
Maybe underdogs usually back down from overdogs entirely unless (a) they think of a way to win (b) they're stupid.
More importantly: maybe the fact that an underdog existed at all is only likely to be recorded if they won.
When have victors ever been shy to boast? But what might be lost is the detail of the underdog's strategy.
Consider the case of rebels trying to secede from a larger nation. If they fail, then history will record that a rebellion took place. If they succeed, then history will record that a civil war took place. The study only looked at "wars".
Even so, why didn't they look harder? It's the generalized willingness to quit and take a loss that's surprising.